Do you see any benefits to religious faith?

[Silver]

As per usual, I see scripture.

That is not evidence of anything except gullibility in deference toward primitive thinking.

[Arkilogue]

As per usual, I see scripture.  

That is not evidence of anything except gullibility in deference toward primitive thinking.

Dance!

[Pat Mustard]

Right, works such as talking to the glorified bodies of Moses and Elijah on a mountain, teleporting through closed doors, and ascending all the way into the clouds! all of which were to be believed on the basis of apostolic tradition.  I can hardly perceive the difference between such divine persuasion when weighed against the "pistis" which I am obliged to consider in the demonstrations of Aristotle.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Jesus allegedly preformed many miracles/healings witnessed by many at the time, several times. A crowd of 5000 according the the loaves and fishes story.

It was a demonstration of power to the people who needed it.

Do you honestly think that a story which didn't appear until, at best, two gerenations after Yeshua's claimed execution (and for which we've no direct evidence of it's existence for yet another 100 years), and which didn't achieve its canonical form for more than two hundred years more (and even at that the gospels had significant alterations appended. For example Nicaean Mark had no resurrection, it ended on the empty tomb, the ressurection was added to make it agree with the later gospels), is any standard of evidence at all?

For the sake of this question I'm temporarily setting aside that quoting the bible is restating the claim, not providing evidence, as that a whole other can of worms in your theology you're not willing to confront.

[Arkilogue]

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Jesus allegedly preformed many miracles/healings witnessed by many at the time, several times. A crowd of 5000 according the the loaves and fishes story.

It was a demonstration of power to the people who needed it.

Do you honestly think that a story which didn't appear until, at best, two gerenations after Yeshua's claimed execution (and for which we've no direct evidence of it's existence for yet another 100 years), and which didn't achieve its canonical form for more than two hundred years more (and even at that the gospels had significant alterations appended. For example Nicaean Mark had no resurrection, it ended on the empty tomb, the ressurection was added to make it agree with the later gospels), is any standard of evidence at all?

For the sake of this question I'm temporarily setting aside that quoting the bible is restating the claim, not providing evidence, as that a whole other can of worms in your theology you're not willing to confront.

And this is why context is so important:

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Sounds (I dare not say looks) like blind faith is what they were going for to me.

What I've posted refutes the claim. Jesus preformed works and did not ask for blind belief.

You could tell me a unicorn has 5 horns and I say "no, a unicorn has 1 horn."
You say, "but it's all fiction!" and I say, so what, it doesn't matter, you are still wrong about what the fiction states and you have interpreted it incorrectly.

And so have the majority of theists because they eat what the "authorities" give them to eat...to remain addicted and dependent. It's working like a charm.

Church: "No personal experience of father God necessary, momma Church will take care of you!"
Human: "Oh Circe', your cocktails are the best! ....why am I growing hooves and a snout?"

Same dance, different song.

[Pat Mustard]

Do you honestly think that a story which didn't appear until, at best, two gerenations after Yeshua's claimed execution (and for which we've no direct evidence of it's existence for yet another 100 years), and which didn't achieve its canonical form for more than two hundred years more (and even at that the gospels had significant alterations appended. For example Nicaean Mark had no resurrection, it ended on the empty tomb, the ressurection was added to make it agree with the later gospels), is any standard of evidence at all?

For the sake of this question I'm temporarily setting aside that quoting the bible is restating the claim, not providing evidence, as that a whole other can of worms in your theology you're not willing to confront.

And this is why context is so important:

Yes the context that you've just essentially admitted that you believe in christian doctrine because bullshit. You don't have an answer for the fact that the bible is at best a third hand hearsay account that has been significantly altered over the c. 18 centuries since the first extant examples of it, in order to better reflect the political mores and needs of the powerful at various times in history (for example KJV was written mainly to bolster Charles VI & I's* claim to have a divine right to rule absolutely, and was deliberately written in archaic English in order to try and disguise the fact that the book had been significantly altered from previous English translations).

*In previous threads I gave credit to his sun Charles VII & II in error. I was placing the book after the Civil War not before.

[Mudhammam]

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Jesus allegedly preformed many miracles/healings witnessed by many at the time, several times. A crowd of 5000 according the the loaves and fishes story.

It was a demonstration of power to the people who needed it.

What I've posted refutes the claim. Jesus preformed works and did not ask for blind belief.

That's the story. You seem to be confusing the claim and that which preceded the claim. Yet it has always been the case, that since the Gospels were written, you are simply expected to believe what they say on the authority of authorship. Hence, the characters are often made to stress the necessity of belief, and the more simple-minded gullibility is endlessly praised as piety.

To believe that Jesus did anything, even from the perspective of a person in the first-century, is to accept a claim on blind faith, for there has never been anything else but the testimony of some obscure charlatans writing or preaching decades after the alleged facts.

[Arkilogue]

And this is why context is so important:

Yes the context that you've just essentially admitted that you believe in christian doctrine because bullshit. You don't have an answer for the fact that the bible is at best a third hand hearsay account that has been significantly altered over the c. 18 centuries since the first extant examples of it, in order to better reflect the political mores and needs of the powerful at various times in history (for example KJV was written mainly to bolster Charles VI & I's* claim to have a divine right to rule absolutely, and was deliberately written in archaic English in order to try and disguise the fact that the book had been significantly altered from previous English translations).

*In previous threads I gave credit to his sun Charles VII & II in error. I was placing the book after the Civil War not before.

No, I've stated it doesn't matter if it's bullshit our not, the contextual claim stands that the faith described in the bible in many places is divine persuasion not human persuasion. Period.

You don't like it's implications, I couldn't care less.

If it helps your atheistic bias, I view the bible as nearly entirely allegorical, finding damn near the same underlying characters and processes in Egyptian and Sumerian mythos. The story of "the savior son of God" is far older than 2016 years.

I'm at a place in growth of my faith that I no longer need to believe or disbelieve in the bible, any scriptural book or any cultural myth on the planet today or yesterday. But have found it them helpful.

My church is the universe.

[Arkilogue]

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Jesus allegedly preformed many miracles/healings witnessed by many at the time, several times. A crowd of 5000 according the the loaves and fishes story.

It was a demonstration of power to the people who needed it.

What I've posted refutes the claim. Jesus preformed works and did not ask for blind belief.

That's the story.  You seem to be confusing the claim and that which preceded the claim.  Yet it has always been the case, that since the Gospels were written, you are simply expected to believe what they say on the authority of authorship.  Hence, the characters are often made to stress the necessity of belief, and the more simple-minded gullibility is endlessly praised as piety.

To believe that Jesus did anything, even from the perspective of a person in the first-century, is to accept a claim on blind faith, for there has never been anything else but the testimony of some obscure charlatans writing or preaching decades after the alleged facts.

I don't "believe" in the bible nor do I need to. I have found what I've needed and moved well beyond it.

[bennyboy]

Religious faith is mere delusion.  In the end, people need to learn to discard the delusion.  They need to learn that it is healthier to understand and accept the harsh truth rather than to become victims to the comfortable lie.

Those are positive assertions beyond what you have the capacity to know.  They represent your world view, not your knowledge, and you must accept the BOP.

[Mudhammam]

I don't "believe" in the bible nor do I need to. I have found what I've needed and moved well beyond it.

That's good. For you. But irrelevant to the claim that you made about Christianity, especially the variety first preached by St. Paul, as well as the author of Hebrews, and its (early) marriage to blind faith.